Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Barry Coleman, JR., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    56 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Barry Coleman's motions to file a notice of appeal out of time and for reconsideration of the denial in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding challenging his criminal conviction. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. Additionally, the Court of Appeals noted that Coleman's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely file a notice of appeal in his § 2255 proceeding was not cognizable since there is no constitutional right to counsel in collateral attacks.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-01-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-7087

    Original Title

    United States v. Barry Coleman, Jr., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Barry Coleman's motions to file a notice of appeal out of time and for reconsideration of the denial in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding challenging his criminal conviction. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. Additionally, the Court of Appeals noted that Coleman's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely file a notice of appeal in his § 2255 proceeding was not cognizable since there is no constitutional right to counsel in collateral attacks.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    56 views2 pages

    United States v. Barry Coleman, JR., 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Barry Coleman's motions to file a notice of appeal out of time and for reconsideration of the denial in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding challenging his criminal conviction. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. Additionally, the Court of Appeals noted that Coleman's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely file a notice of appeal in his § 2255 proceeding was not cognizable since there is no constitutional right to counsel in collateral attacks.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-7087

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    BARRY L. COLEMAN, JR.,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:05-cr-00367-JRS-1; 3:08-cv-00064-JRS)

    Submitted:

    December 20, 2011

    Before AGEE and


    Circuit Judge.

    DIAZ,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    January 5, 2012

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Barry
    L.
    Coleman,
    Jr.,
    Appellant
    Pro
    Se.
    Angela
    Mastandrea-Miller, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States
    Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Barry

    L.

    Coleman,

    Jr.

    appeals

    from

    the

    district

    courts orders denying his motions to file a notice of appeal


    out of time and for reconsideration in his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255
    (West

    2006

    &

    Supp.

    2011)

    proceeding.

    record and find no reversible error.

    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    Accordingly, we affirm for

    the reasons stated by the district court. *

    United States v.

    Coleman, Nos. 3:05-cr-00367-JRS-1; 3:08-cv-00064-JRS (E.D. Va.


    June

    13

    &

    July

    20,

    2011).

    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    In addition, Coleman claims he received ineffective


    assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to file a timely
    notice of appeal. However, there is no constitutional right to
    counsel in a collateral attack. See Hunt v. Nuth, 57 F.3d 1327,
    1340 (4th Cir. 1995).
    Thus, even if counsel in his 2255
    proceeding was ineffective, that performance cannot give rise to
    a cognizable claim for relief. United States v. MacDonald, 966
    F.2d 854, 859 n.9 (4th Cir. 1992).

    You might also like